At the November 21 meeting of the Faculty Senate, members discussed recommended policy changes to the role of student course evaluations, following recommended policies released by the Student Assessment of Instruction Ad Hoc Committee earlier this academic year.
According to Associate Professor of Management Dr. Haley Woznyj, who leads the committee, it was put together in Spring 2022 in order to better understand how to improve Longwood’s student evaluation system. She said the committee focused on the last ten years of published research into student evaluations, which has found student evaluations are inherently biased, and have limited accuracy when measuring teaching effectiveness.
“It was very clear from what we had found from this peer-reviewed literature that student evaluations are biased and that they don't measure teaching effectiveness,” Woznyj said. Currently, student evaluations are used to determine things such as promotion and tenure and used in decision-making for faculty awards.
“The proposal is to take the student evaluations out of the evaluation process for faculty, because it doesn't measure teaching effectiveness. It is biased against women faculty, faculty of color, LGBTQIA faculty, and that opens the door for discrimination,” Woznyj said. She said that leaves Longwood at risk of liability for discrimination.
In Faculty Senate, many senators said their departments were in full support of the proposal, though concerns over student voice were raised. Associate Professor of Sociology Dr. Scott Grether pushed back on these concerns, “We aren't fully understanding how student voice is being eliminated, because there are many formal avenues where student voice is currently acknowledged,” specifically mentioning “the Dean of Students, the Vice President of Student Affairs, Office of Student Affairs, and academic and student support offices.”
Grether also discussed informal avenues, such as Rate My Professor and YikYak.
Members of Faculty Senate asked Student Representative Meredith Foster about student voice concerns, who said, “We haven't really discussed it at SGA, or I haven't heard of any student rumblings around campus, but I think the proposal is very fair.” Foster added, “From my student perspective, I do think [the recommended policies are] appropriate.”
There was also a discussion over student response rates, which Woznyj estimated during the meeting to be 15% to 30%.
In her interview with The Rotunda prior to Faculty Senate, Woznyj specifically referenced student voice. She said, “I think that the knee jerk reaction to our proposals and what we’re saying is that, ‘oh, we're getting rid of the student voice.’ We are not getting rid of the student voice whatsoever.” She also mentioned the possibility of an eventual survey or focus groups to gauge student opinion.
There was also a discussion during Faculty Senate over what will replace the current form of student evaluations.
“We are suggesting that we change the content and the name of the form by which we collect the student voice. So instead of right now, the form is framed as a measure of teaching effectiveness, and we are suggesting that it should be really a measure of student experience in the classroom. Your experience as a student is very important,” Woznyj said in the interview.
Dr. Kris Paal, associate professor of communication studies, said there was “concern [in his department] over what would take its place, and wanting to maybe have more exploration of what would take its place before just removing it,” but support overall.
Later in the meeting, Dr. Bill Abrams, professor of mathematics, said, “The problem I have right now is that we're being told we're using things that don't measure it directly. Once you're told that, the thing we replace it with is… replace it with a coin flip, it's just as good.”
Dr. Lee Bidwell, chair of Faculty Senate, also read parts of a letter from the Academic Chairs Council (ACC), who expressed similar concerns over student voice, adding that things mentioned in student evaluations are often important for department chairs to know and suggesting some revised language to the policies.
Furthermore, the letter from the ACC also pointed out that other forms of student voice – such as the ones mentioned by Grether – do not provide an anonymous space for students to share their concerns.
The Faculty Senate did not approve or decline the recommended policies, instead discussions will continue among faculty members and committees of Faculty Senate.
